LexBABUBHAI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[201 OJ 10 S.C.R. 651 BABUBHAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC. (Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of 2010) AUGUST 26, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] A B FIR - Two FIRs - Investigation into - Permissibility - Held: If the court finds that both the FIRs relate to the same incident, second FIR is liable to be cancelled - But if both C the FIRs are in respect of different incidents, investigation in both the FIRs has to be conducted - On facts, the two FIRs pertained to the same transaction - High Court rightly quashed the second FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 154. D Investigation - Two FIRs lodged - High Court quashing one of the FIRs and finding that investigation was biased and unfair, directed investigation info the surviving FIR by independent agency - High Court also directed the charges in the quashed FIR to be read in the surviving case - Propriety of High Court order - Held: If investigation is held to be unfair, such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge-sheet - Thus, charge-sheets filed in both the cases became inconsequential - If the court finds the investigation to be unfair, the court can direct only further investigation and not re-investigation - The power of the court to interfere with investigation and direct further investigation E F is limited and can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances - Direction issued to the independent investigating agency, chosen by the High Court, to make fresh G investigation - Charge-sheets in both the cases and any order consequent thereto, quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 173(8). 651 H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 20 and 21 - Fair investigation - Held: Is part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 - Investigation. In a criminal case two FIRs were lodged which were 8 registered as CR No.1-154/2008 and CR No.1-155/2008, respectively. The accused in both the cases filed Special Criminal Application, seeking investigation of CR No. 1- 154/2008 by an independent agency. They also filed Special Criminal Application for quashing both the C criminal cases. The High Court quashed the FIR registered as CR No.1-155/2008 and clubbed the investigation of the FIR alongwith the investigation of the other FIR bearing CR No.1-154/2008. The High Court transferred the investigation to the State CID, Crime Branch, directing investigation of the case in CR No.1-154/ D 2008. The High Court further clarified that quashing of FIR bearing CR No.1-15512008 did not mean that the accused in the said FIR were discharged, but they would face charges in CR No.1-154/2008 and the accused who stood arrested in connection with CR No.1-155/2008 would E stand arrested in connection with case CR.No.1-154/2008. Therefore, the instant appeals were filed by the complainant as well as the State. The Appellant/complainant and the State inter-alia F contended that the FIRs could not be clubbed as there were two separate incidents at two different places and for distinct offences. Disposing of the appeals, the Court G HELD: 1.1 An FIR u/s. 154 Cr.P.C. is a very important document. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion u/s. 169 or 170 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, and forwarding of a police H report uls. 173 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is quite possible that more BABUBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC. 653 than one piece of information be given to the Police A Officer incharge of the Police Station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the Diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the B investigation into the facts mentioned in the FIR will be statements falling u/s. 162 Cr.P;C. [Para 17] [668-E-H] 1.2 In such a case, the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both C the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where D the version
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.